The place to discuss Christianity, Right Wing Politics and which beer is best

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Science by Flash Mob

Ann Coulter enlightens us as to how a reasonable person can doubt Darwinian evolution. Apparently it took up a great deal of space in her 2007 book Godless: The Church of Liberalism....

"Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin's time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once -- complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell's tiny flagellum and cilium.

Darwin's theory was that life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which by random mutation, sex and death, would pass on the desirable mutations, and this process, over billions of years, would lead to the creation of new species.

The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Thanks to advances in microscopes, thousands of such complex mechanisms have been found since Darwin's day. He had to explain only simple devices, such as beaks and gills. If Darwin were able to come back today and peer through a modern microscope to see the inner workings of a cell, he would instantly abandon his own theory.

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum (above) -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible."

I've always been fascinated by the arguments raised by mathematicians insofar as the probability of macroevolution having ever occurred. Perhaps that is why I link mathemataicians like William Dembski and One thing you will never hear mentioned by a True Believer in the Cult of Darwin are the findings of the mathematicians that participated in the Wistar Institute Symposium.

33 comments:

""Most devastating for the Darwiniacs were advances in microbiology since Darwin's time, revealing infinitely complex mechanisms requiring hundreds of parts working together at once -- complex cellular structures, DNA, blood-clotting mechanisms, molecules, and the cell's tiny flagellum and cilium."

We have explanations for these things. Even if we did not, this does not entail that evolution is thrown out the window because it is still the best explanation to account for the given data.

"The (extremely generous) test Darwin set for his theory was this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This is a famous quote-mine of Darwin. You should read what he has to say after. Also, who cares what Darwin said? There have been tremendous advances in our knowledge about evolution since his book.

It is a mathematical impossibility, for example, that all 30 to 40 parts of the cell's flagellum (above) -- forget the 200 parts of the cilium! -- could all arise at once by random mutation. According to most scientists, such an occurrence is considered even less likely than John Edwards marrying Rielle Hunter, the "ground zero" of the impossible."

It is not arising all at once. Start from a false premise/assumption and you'll have an unreasonable position.

Well, since you like Coulter's book so much, you may want to take up PZ's challenge:

By the way, the Coulter challenge is still open, and has been for five years. All anyone has to do is pick one paragraph, any paragraph, from her evolution chapters in Godless, and post it with a defense of its accuracy. That shouldn’t be so hard, should it? She wrote this whole book, I’m letting you pick the very best, most solid, strongest argument against evolution from it and present it here to stump us all. It’s strange that no one has managed to do that in all this time.

>> Justin Vacula: "This is a famous quote-mine of Darwin. You should read what he has to say after

You: “Can you recommend a link?”

No problem!

Here's the entire paragraph: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. No doubt many organs exist of which we do not know the transitional grades, more especially if we look to much-isolated species, round which, according to my theory, there has been much extinction. Or again, if we look to an organ common to all the members of a large class, for in this latter case the organ must have been first formed at an extremely remote period, since which all the many members of the class have been developed; and in order to discover the early transitional grades through which the organ has passed, we should have to look to very ancient ancestral forms, long since become extinct." (emphasis mine)

I'm sorry Reynold, but is this debate challenge coming from someone who has repeatedly adopted the Run And Hide method of argumentation when challenged to a debate by someone who has a Bachelors degree in economics? Yes or no?

Your argument would be justifiable if the discussion here was about economics, but that's not the case; the debate is about evolution and a bachelor's degree in economics doesn't make someone's arguments more valid and - to tell you the truth - means nothing since the subject has more to do with biology than anything else.

You are assuming that Day knows nothing about science and that is not the case.

Myers would get destroyed by Day because Day has forgotten more about logical argumentation than Myers could ever learn.

Day feels quite confident in exposing Dawkins as well, and although Dawkins rises to a level a bit higher than a community college biology department prof, Dawkins' Run and Hide re: debating William Lane Craig is getting downright embarrassing and why anyone would put any stock into what either one of them has to say is beyond me.

I'm sorry Reynold, but is this debate challenge coming from someone who has repeatedly adopted the Run And Hide method of argumentation when challenged to a debate by someone who has a Bachelors degree in economics? Yes or no?

As to why Myers won't debate Day, especially on a conservative venue is this:Besides, I learned my lesson in the Geoffrey Simmons radio debate: it's a waste of time to go up against one of these insane babblers, because all they can do is high-frequency repetition of nonsensical claims. I've also acquired a deep distrust of conservative radio — the outcome of that debate, in which Simmons was flattened, was that they merely reinvited him back on the show without me around to puncture his claims. The fact that the Northern Alliance radio show actually thinks Vox Day is a credible voice for conservative thought tells me right away that there is something wrong with them, and no, I'm not going to trust them at all.

As for Dawkins, you do realize that he has interviewed and debated you people before, right? Only whenever he's appeared on camera you people fuck around with the editing of the film to twist what he said: First with that "From a Frog to A Prince" then again in "Expelled". Even so, he has talked with that Purdom character from AIG.

Myer's challenge is still up. Are you going to accept or not? After all, you claim that Coulter's book is accurate when it describes evolution, and Myers is giving you the chance to show it.

I’ve been looking into Vox Day’s blog and he indeed knows nothing about science. Even a fifth grader knows more about science than Vox Day’s.

And another thing: the only person I see that is dodging the challenge is you. If you know so much about evolution and consider Coulter’s book to be accurate, accept the Myer’s challenge. What do you have to lose?

I remembered: did you read Darwin’s complete quote in its proper context? You asked for the link and I gave it to you.

"I'm sorry Reynold, but is this debate challenge coming from someone who has repeatedly adopted the Run And Hide method of argumentation when challenged to a debate by someone who has a Bachelors degree in economics? Yes or no?"

If you do not know the answer then perhaps you should utilize search engines to find out the answer.

Please note that I asked you for an answer Reynold, not rationalization.

The last thing I read by Theodore Beale was his pathetic and deeply ignorant reaction to Xiaotingia. It was enough to reveal that he is profoundly inane.

So, no...I've addressed Beale's stupid arguments enough on the web to know there's no point in ever sharing a podium with him. Also, of course, there's the fact that he's a complete nobody, a wacky strange guy way out on the fringe, and not even the creationists think much of him. That he's whining and demanding that I debate him is simply laughable.

I know that he fucked up royally on Archaeopteryx, that's for sure. So, it'd be "perceived" flaws that he's pointing out. And yes, I did post there. He goes off on how science isn't needed for technology or some such shit, and claims that xianity is responsible for science.

If you were to ask me a direct question like 'What do you think is the strongest argument against macroevolutionary theory?' and I answered 'Red', I could then piss and moan about having

A. Answered your question and,B. It's now a case of you just not liking the answer.

Comment moderation is now enabled. Way to 'Strike a Blow for Free Speech', Chumley.

Start by answering Day's direct questiions that you have thus far refused to answer. When you have done so, you can attempt to answer mine.

There are alot of blogs out there that will probably welcome your commentary Reynold. Until you answer the direct question in the yes/no or either/or format as they were put to you, I suggest that you take up commenting on one of those.

'A cursory internet search utilizing a common search engine yielded a motherlode of information when the terms [Slavery in Brazil] were entered.

Provided the information is correct, I would like to reposit my question too you utilizing a history that should be much more familiar to you.

Were slaves in Brazil, whether they were from Africa or indigenous peoples, voluntarily entering into agreements with masters in which at the end of said agreement's term, they could then fully expect to be manumitted and made citizens and thus enter Brazilian society?

Or would they more accurately be described as victims of a practice strictly forbidden in the Bible known as manstealing?'

No, I won't answer you about that. I'm done debating with you people. Like I said I posted this answer on VD's blog a lot of times and someone there deleted it. It seems you have more free time on your hands than me and if you didn't read it because my answers to you were deleted, sorry. I won't post it again here, in VD's blog or in anywhere else.